xt7b5m62866x https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7b5m62866x/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1984-09-10  minutes 2004ua061 English   Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, September 10, 1984 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, September 10, 1984 1984 1984-09-10 2020 true xt7b5m62866x section xt7b5m62866x LMNVERSHY OF KENTUCKY







August 31, 1984

Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
September 10, 1984 at 3:00 p.m. in room 110, Classroom Building.

Minutes of April 9 and April 25, 1984.


Report of the Academic Ombudsman: Dr. Charles Ellinger.
Chairman's Remarks.


a. Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section 1., 5.2,

Election: Two Voting University System Faculty Members
(circulated under date of August 30, 1984).


Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section V.,
4.1.5, Second Master's Degree (circulated under date of
August 31, 1984).


George Dexter
Secretary, University Senate




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, September l0,
l984, in Room l06 of the Classroom Building. .

Robert Bostrom, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent: Richard Angelo, Charles E. Barnhart, Jack C. Blanton, Thomas 0.
Blues*, James A. Boling*, Ray M. Bowen, Daniel J. Breazeale, Thomas D. Brower, George
F. Crewe*, Ching Chow, Glenn B. Collins*, Emmett Costich, Philip Dare, Leo S. Demski,
Herbert Drennon, Nancy E. Dye, Anthony Eardley, William Ecton*, Donald G. Ely*, Charles
H. Fay, Carolyn Fore*, Ray Forgue*, Timothy Freudenberg, Richard W. Furst, Art
Gallaher, Jr.*, Lester Goldstein, Andrew J. Grimes*, Gina Hall, Marilyn D. Hamann*,
Leonard Heller, Taylor Hoover, Raymond Hornback, Alfred S. L. Hu, Chuck Huffman, John
J. Just, David T. Kao, James 0. King, Robert Lawson, David Lowery, Edgar Maddox,

Paul Mandelstam*, Kenneth E. Marino*, Sally S. Mattingly*, Marcus T. McEllistrem,
Martin J., McMahon, Jr., H. Brinton Milward, Kevin D. Moore*, Steven Nicholson, Robert
C. Nobel*, Clayton Omvig, Merrill Packer*, Robin D. Powell, Peter Purdue, Madhira D.
Ram*, E. Douglas Rees*, Thomas C. Robinson, Gerald A. Rosenthal, Charles Sachatello*,
Edgar Sagan, John C. Snider, Tom Stephens, Joseph V. Swintosky*, Elizabeth Taylor*,
Kenneth Thompson, Steve Thornbury, Marc J. Wallace, O'Neil Weeks, Jesse Neil, Charles
T. Wethington, Bill White, Carolyn Williams*

The Minutes of the meetings of April 9 and April 25, l984, were approved as
circulated. Chairman Bostrom noted that on the Minutes of April 25 the date con-
cerning the approval of the Minutes of April l9 should be changed to April 9. There
was no objection.

Chairman Bostrom said he was not the President of the Senate but was Chairman
of the Senate Council. The President of the Senate is Dr. Otis Singletary who gave
the following remarks to the senate.

President Singletary welcomed the senators for another aca-
demic year and said it was extremely difficult to talk about the
University in any serious way without keeping in front what is
apparently the eternal and recurring fiscal problem. "It colors
and conditions almost everything we do,“ he said. He added it was
the most serious problem of the University and that in the biennial
budget there was a 2.3 percent increase for this year and a 5 per—
cent for next year in terms of general funds support. He felt that
by the end of this year there would be a difference of $2,000 to
$2,500 in salaries between UK and the benchmark institutions.
President Singletary saw nothing in the immediate future to lead
him to think that our basic financial problems are going to be
fundamentally altered.

Another development which he wanted the senators to be aware
of was the question of the possible merger between the University-
of Kentucky and University of Louisville. He said that the Council
on Higher Education passed a resolution to the two presidents to
work with their boards of trustees to see if such a merger is
feasible. .In his opinion the discussion of the advantages and dis-
advantages would go on for most of this year.

*Absence explained


 He said another thing the senators would be hearing about was
the legislative committee which has begun to meet. The committee
has been given a broad agenda to evaluate the structure and organi—
zation of the system, the administrative structure of the eight
major universities, the amount of unnecessary duplication, the fund-
ing, the impact of tuition and financial aid upon access and
institutional quality.

President Singletary reported on the preliminary enrollment
figures. He said it looked like the overall enrollment would be
down about l.8 percent. The biggest drop was the size of the fresh—
man class. 0n the main campus there are about 2l,300 students or
a decrease of 3.4 percent. Community College enrollments are about
24,000. The freshman class will be about 2300 which is a l5 per—
cent decline. He felt selective admissions would help to improve
retention rates over the years. Graduate enrollments are up. Pro—
fessional enrollments are down in dentistry and law, but this was
planned. Nursing, Allied Health, Pharmacy, and Business and
Economics have increased.

The President mentioned new appointments that have been made.
In the Medical Center there are three new deans: Robin Powell,
College of Medicine and Vice Chancellor for Professional Services;
Thomas Robinson, Allied Health; and Carolyn Williams, Nursing. 0n
the Lexington Campus they are Dr. William Parker, Vice Chancellor
of Minority Affairs and Herbert Drennon, Dean of Communications.
He added that the most important unfilled positions are the Regis-
trar and the Director of Admissions.

There are three new Community College Directors: Sharon Jaggard,
Lexington Community College; Dr. Richard Carpenter, Somerset Com—
munity College; and Dr. Vivian Blevins, Southeast Community College.

Dr. Singletary said he was pleased to report the accreditation
of the departments of Journalism and Mining Engineering.

The President reported on the good news that in spite of the
rather dismal financial picture from the point of view of the pub-
lic and appropriated money, private contributions are playing a
large role in our function. He added that a public University can-
not be operated on private money.

President Singletary felt the UK Fellows' program was probably
the most successful of the development programs in terms of growth
and financial commitment. In l969 the number was 55 and today
there are approximately l200. ”These Fellows have made commitments
in excess of $27 million,” he said. He added that UK is also doing
better in deferred gifts and is now beginning to reap the rewards
of a long-time program. He said there are now some 800 corporations
and foundations giving money for one purpose or another. Last year
that was in excess of $5 million. There have been other large
gifts from individuals. He felt there is going to be a significant
announcement this fall that would be of Special interest. “In the'
last academic year a new record was set for private giving to UK
in excess of $9 million,” he said. This year there will be some—



 where between $l3 and $l5 million. He said there were several
substantial gifts for professorships.

The President also reported on the physical structure and
rennovation on campus. He said that UK has opened the ambulatory
care facility and the Southwest Jefferson Auditorium. He also
mentioned the $2.2 million animal care facility. The Pharmacy
Building is scheduled for completion next summer. The Cancer
Center should open this year, and parking structure number 3 is
being planned. He said there was literally no money for new
capital construction projects in the budget.

President Singletary said there were more dollars for merit
scholarships this year than ever before and UK was going to have
to make it attractive for bright students to apply here.

The Board of Trustees has approved President Singletary‘s
recommendation to create an excellence fund.

The President encouraged the senators to look toward better
days. In the meantime he urged them to continue to teach well,
be active in their research, and to provide that wide range of
services which every state university is expected and required
to do. He reminded the senate that a first-rate faculty is the
bedrock upon which a first-rate university stands.

The senators applauded President Singletary and on behalf of the University
Senate, Chairman Bostrom thanked him.

Chairman Bostrom recognized Professor Jesse Harris who presented the following
Memorial Resolution on the death of Professor Betsy Worth Estes.

Betsy North Estes

Dr. Betsy North Estes, who retired from the University
of Kentucky on July l, l974, as Professor in the Department
of Psychology, died on April l6, l984, in Lexington. A
native of Winchester, Kentucky, she earned the A.B. degree
in 1929, the M.A. degree in l945, and the Ph.D. degree in
l950, all at the University of Kentucky. She was one of the
first women full professors if not the first, in the Univer-
sity of Kentucky, having served at a time when Deans believed,
as was conveyed by her Department Head, that she did not need
a pay raise because she had a husband to support her.

In the field of psychology, Betsy Estes studied mathe-
matical and l09ical concepts in children and monetary reward
and motivation in discrimination learning. She also conducted
extensive studies of the application of intelligence tests
and published in scientific and professional journals through—
out her career. She was interested in child development and



 intellectual evaluation, and it was somewhat unusual, though
not irrelevant to her long term interests, that she chose for

a dissertation topic a study of the relationship between temper-
ament of thoroughbred broodmares and performance of offspring.
An article based on her dissertation was published in the
Journal of Genetic Psychology in l952. As we all know, Betsy
Estes was a dignified lady, but imagine the surprise for an
aspiring young divinity student who discovered Dr. Estes shoot—
ing dice with the Department Head in the Department conference
room--all in the name of science to establish probabilities

for psychological experiments.


She was a consulting editor for the monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, and a member of the
American Psychological Association, and of the Kentucky Psy-
chological Association. She was also an active member of the
Kentucky Academy of Science and the Southern Society for Phi-
losophy and Psychology.

Dr. Estes was a member of the University Senate and a
Faculty Advisor to Mortar Board. She was also known for her
many contributions to the larger community of Lexington. As a
member of the Lexington Junior League, she helped to organize
the Graham B. Dimmick Child Guidance Service. She was Presi—
dent of the Board of the Fayette County Children's Bureau,
President of the Board of the Comprehensive Care Center for
Mental Health-Mental Retardation and helped to initiate ser-
vices in maternal and child health. Dr. Estes also helped to
establish classes for the gifted at the Lincoln School and
served as President of the Board of Trustees of the Lexington
Public Library, and as a member of the Advisory Committee to
the Lexington-Fayette City-County Planning Commission. She was
an affiliate of garden clubs in Lexington for many years.

Her husband, Joseph A. Estes, former editor of one of the
major thoroughbred racing journals, died a number of years ago.
She is survived by a son, Dr. Joseph Worth Estes, a physician
in Boston, Massachusetts; a daughter, Phoebe Bryan of Nilliston,
Vermont; two brothers, and two grandchildren; and her devoted
first cousin, Marie Kittrell of Lexington.

The Betsy Worth Estes Endowment has been established for
the Graham B. Dimmick Child Guidance Service.

(Prepared by Professor Jesse G. Harris, Jr., Chairman of Department of Psychology)

Professor Harris directed that the Resolution be made a part of these minutes and
that copies be sent to the family. Chairman Bostrom asked the senators to stand for
a moment of silence in tribute and respect to Professor Betsy Worth Estes.

Chairman Bostrom announced that Dr. Charles Ellinger would serve as Academic
Ombudsman for the next year. Professor Ellinger was recognized and gave the followw
ing remarks and showed slides concerning the Ombudsman‘s Office for the l983—84
academic year.



 Professor EIIinger made the foIIowing presentation:

”It's with a great deaI of pride and satisfaction that I present
to the University Senate the AnnuaI Report of the Office of Academic
Ombudsman. Approximater fourteen months ago, I embarked upon a new
adventure. The roTe I was about to assume was somewhat a mystery to
me. I was, Iike many of you, aware of the office but not very weII
informed. I was at that time, and stiII am, a Prosthodontist. Added
to that I was now an Ombudsman. I now had not one, but two titTes
that few peopIe understood, nor for that matter, coqu correctTy pro—
nounce. .

The year has come and gone. I feeI very proud and honored to
have served in this roIe. The office of Academic Ombudsman is a much
more important office than I visuaIized. This office provides a neu-
traI ground for probTems to be mediated and hopefuIIy soIved. This
office has given me the opportunity to meet many new individuaIs on
this campus - administrators, facuTty and students.

I must confess to you that shortIy after my appointment was
announced I received from my coIIeagues and friends many comments.
Interestineg, most of the comments were those of condoIence not con-
gratuIations. When it was announced this year that I was to continue
in the position for another year, these same friends and coIIeagues
began a coTIection fund for me so that I might begin treatment for
what they perceived to be a Tack of emotionaI stabiTity. Serioust,

I can teIT you that I have found the facuTty of this University, with
the possibIe exception of one or two individuaTs, to be extremer
cooperative. Further, I am impressed with the sincerity of most of
the students that come to our office. For the most part, the students
have Iegitimate grievances. You wiII note that I caIT them grievances
instead of compIaints. I personaIIy do not wish the office to be a
compIaint department, but rather an office that strives for mediation
and sqution.

At this time I woqu Iike to introduce Ms. Garrison, who is
affectionateiy referred to by aIT of her friends and coITeagues, as
Frankie. Frankie has been with the office for approximater nine
years. Her experience is very vaTuabIe to a new Ombudsman. Her ex-
pertise concerning the ruTes and reguTations of this University is
surpassed by few peopIe on this campus. I incIude her in aIT my
conferences. She is a friend of the students but at the same time
has exceIIent rapport with the facuIty and administration.

Others I wish to thank are my immediate predecessors — BiTI Lacy,
Mike Brooks, and Jean PivaI. ATI have provided advice and encourage-
ment. Doug Rees, Bob Bostrom, and Cindy Todd of the Student CounciT
Office have been extremer heIpfuI. Ann Garrity, PauT Sears, George
Dexter and Linda HensIey have been readiTy avaiTabIe for consuTtations.
BiIT Fortune, Hearing Officer of the University AppeaIs Board, has
given me continuaI advice in regard to the AppeaIs Board. I wouId Iike
to thank Dr. GaIIaher, ChanceITor of the Lexington Campus, and Dr.
80somworth, ChanceIIor of the MedicaT Center. Both have been extremer
supportive of our office. FinaIIy, I wouId Tike to thank Dr. SingTetary.
The efficiency of this office is directIy proportionaI to the support



 of the President and I'm pleased to say that this President does in—
deed support this office. »

From July l, l983, to June 30, l984, this office handled 407
multiple contact cases. There were l,42l shorter cases which re—
quired only information, referral, or brief advice. The most fre—
quently occurring grievances included dissatisfaction over grades -
2lO; teaching practices and personality conflicts — 30; finals - 24;
add/drop - 24; cheating - 22; repeat option - l5; illness - l5;
plagiarism - ll; common exams - 8; disputes with departments - 4.

Arts and Sciences accounted for the highest number of griev-
ances — 233; Business and Economics - l9; Engineering - l8; Fine
Arts — l3; Education - l2; Graduate School - l0; Architecture - 6;
Allied Health - 5; Pharmacy — 3; Communications and Agriculture — 4
each; Dentistry, Law, Medicine, Nursing and Social Work - l each.

The characteristics of the students involved in the multiple
contact cases are as follows: Freshmen _ 98; Sophomores - 9l;
Juniors - 83; Seniors - 73; graduates — 20; professional students -
l8. We have also broken down the multiple contact cases into the
months the students first came into our office: July - l2; August -
28; September - 44; October - 27; November - l4; December - 38;
January - 42; February — 29; March — 68; April — 29; May - 4T and
June - l5.

”Many of my colleagues in the dental profession, feel that a
Prosthodontist must perform miracles when treating patients with
dentures. It is not surprising that I thought I could perform simi-
lar miracles in this office. Boy! Was I surprised.

I would like to switch my direction and report to you my feel-
ings, experiences and recommendations for possible change.


What is it? On my desk is a sign that I inherited from the
previous Ombudsmen. It states: Academic Ombudsman - Helping to
bridge the gap between the students, faculty and administration at
U.K. I have used this statement as a goal that I wish to achieve
during my tenure as Academic Ombudsman. To this point it has worked
reasonably well.


I would like to present to you the three basic objectives I've
used while I have been in office. These are Mediation, Education,
and Prevention. I feel my past experience as father, professor,
and dentist makes me reasonably well qualified for all three.

Mediation is a word that has become very important to me in
the past fourteen months. I found that our best results have
come from mediation. Meetings with both parties collectively have



 brought excellent results. I recall one instance when a meeting
was arranged between a student and faculty member concerning a
grade. The student presented the case and then the professor.

The Professor had, in my opinion, been fair and just in the grade”
I told the student of my opinion. The student thanked both the
professor and myself for our time and concern. The student com—
plimented the professor for a very fine course, stood up, shook
hands with the professor, and started to leave. The professor
overwhelmed with the professionalism of the student, told the stu-
dent that a reevaluation of the grade would be made. Both left
happy! Not all cases end like this, but mediation has been very
successful. ’

Education is a word used often by all of us at U.K. I am
using the word in a different context. It has been our desire to
make available to everyone on campus, information that will make
them better informed about not only our office, but all the aca~
demic rights and responsibilities of the faculty, students and

If we achieve the above objective, that of education, then
the third objective can be achieved. This is something that I
have had a keen interest in achieving as a dentist - that is pre-
vention. I have a phrase I use in my continuing education course
that I present to practicing dentists. This phrase is: Tell the
patient the problem before it occurs and it's scientific knowledge;
tell the patient the problem after it occurs and it's an excuse.

I feel that we, collectively, as faculty, students and admin—
istrators, with proper education and effort, can prevent problems
from occurring. I ask that all of you work toward that objective!


The next area that I wish to discuss does not necessarily
need change, possibly only better implementation. I have called
this problems and concerns.


There is a large number of faculty, students and administra—
tors who do not understand this rule.

First, I ask all of you present to educate your colleagues to
the rule that states the student must notify in writing the dean of
the college in which the student is enrolled and the student's ad—
visor no later than the last day for dropping the course without a
grade of any kind appearing on the transcript (this is three weeks).
I cannot and will not ask my colleagues in administrative positions
to bend on the time period again.

Secondly, there is much misconception about the rule itself.
Students and faculty must be aware that the first grade does remain
on the transcript with a letter R beside the course. Contrary to



 some belief, there is no method to ”wipe off” the first grade.

Finally, the letter grade that is received on the second com—
pletion is the grade of record and is used for academic standing
and credit. I am told, however, that most professional and graduate
colleges do use both grades in their evaluation process.


The syllabus should be given at the first or second class
meeting and inform the student about the nature of the course. It
should be in writing. It becomes a contract between the student and
the professor. A well written syllabus makes our job much easier.
It is more difficult to defend a professor if the syllabus is not
descriptive. It should include a reasonable description about the
grading practice. A well defined description of cheating and
plagiarism policies is well advised. A photocopy of the page from
the Students Rights and Responsibilities is used by some. (The
wide variance of penalties for cheating and plagiarism will be dis-
cussed later.) A description of the absence policy should be in—
cluded when attendance is required. Be specific in regard to the
penalty. If class participation is a part of the course, be speci—
fic. Further discussion on class participation will follow.



This topic has caused our office so many problems that I de—
cided to include it as a special item. Generally, class participa-
tion is poorly defined in the syllabus. It seems to serve as a
subjective “fudge factor”. It creates no problem until the student
is on the borderline. Then it becomes a hassle. If the professor
is using class participation in its true sense, i.e. students re-
sponding in class to questions asked by the professor, then it is
advisable for the professor to keep record of these responses. A
common grievance from students concerning this matter is “the pro-
fessor did not call on me.” It is my opinion that fewer problems
occur in the area of class participation, especially in larger
classes, if class participation evaluation is confined to use in
borderline cases and not be a part of the overall grade evaluation.
Grades made by objective evaluation are much easier for us to sup-
port than subjective grades. I am fully aware that some courses
are not conducive to objective evaluation. In these cases I ask
your help in being as specific as you can.


According to University Senate Rules, Section VII - 2.3 f.
the faculty shall return to, discuss with or make available to
students all papers, quizzes and examinations within a reasonable
period of time, unless the confidentiality of the examination
precludes. This was further interpreted in l979, to state that
all final examinations and term papers-that are not returned to
students be retained by the instructor for at least one (l) semes-
ter. Our office would go one step further and recommend one (l)



 year, since students have the right to appeal up to one year.

Professors who are retiring or leaving the University should
be advised to give their exams and grade book to the Department
Chairman. This provides for us the necessary documents should
students appeal their grades.


Students must be educated early in their college careers
that they can change the date of certain examinations providing
that more than two examinations occur on any one date. Further,
the students must remember that the rescheduling must be exer—
cised in writing to the appropriate instructor two weeks prior
to the last class meeting. (Senate Rule V - 2.4.5)


Many students are not aware that they can change a common
examination date if two examinations have been scheduled for the
same time. The important thing that the student must know is that
the rescheduling must be requested of the appropriate instructor
in writing at least two weeks prior to the scheduled examination.
(Senate Rule V — 2.4.6)


I have listed only two areas that I am requesting further
study. Both of these areas cause continual problems for our office.


Cheating and plagiarism is a continual concern for all edu-
cational institutions. In this morning's paper there was an
article stating the concerns of cheating and plagiarism at
various universities. All feel a deep concern. Many solutions
and recommendations are discussed in this article. Several uni-
versities are including in their penalty a community service
project. The article further discusses the reasons some pro—
fessors do nothing about an alleged cheating. One reason stated
was the fear of being sued by the student.

Our office has the same concerns stated in the article. I
don't know all the reasons that students cheat. I would like
to have the answer to that question. My immediate concern is
the wide range of penalties that are given in this University.
In a recent Senate meeting a proposal was made and defeated to
give an "E” in a course if a student was accused of cheating
or plagiarism. .

The concern of students and some faculty seemed to be the
rigidity of the penalty and the fact that it treated all degrees
of cheating with the same penalty. Right or wrong it was defeated.
The problem is that our office experiences a wide range of penalty
by various departments and faculty. If you cheat in certain



 classes it's OK. If you cheat in other classes, they will ”throw
the book at you.”

. It is my desire to organize a symposium for either this fall
or spring to study the problem of cheating and plagiarism. The
President of the Student Body has appointed an individual from
the student body to assist me. Other volunteers are welcome.

In order that some type of recommendation be brought before
this body, I am suggesting as a starter the following proposal.
The student will automatically be given an ”E” in a course if the
examination or project is worth 25% or more of the course grade.
Since the laws of the land provide the misdeameanor and felony,
this seems appropriate. Further, if the student is currently
failing the course at the time of the offense, then the student
could be considered for suspension for one (l) semester.


Examinations given the week prior to finals week has been
a controversial issue. It is not my intention to throw new wood
into the fire. However, I feel this body should be aware of the
difficulties it creates. The Senate Rule (Section V _ 2.4.5)
states that if a final examination is to be given, it will be
administered during the examination period as scheduled. These
examination periods will utilize the last five days of each
semester, and will be preceded by a study day or weekend on
which no classes or examinations will be scheduled. Further,
the Senate passed a policy on February 20, l98l, that made the
suggestion "that no examination be permitted during the last
week of classes.“ Many professors do not adhere to this policy.
I'm reluctant to be very vocal on this issue because I do not
wish to cause a handicap for the students. Many professors
state the students prefer this and a vote is often taken. The
problem is the one student who does not wish to take the examina—
tion early. My recommendation in this issue would be that those
students not desiring to take the final early be given the oppor—
tunity at the scheduled time. Further, the issue is clouded by
those who do not give "final" examinations. We have had students
in our office who have had as many as four examinations on Fri—
day, the day prior to finals week.

My recommendation to this body on this issue is to evalu-
ate whether or not a ”dead week“ is desired. If so, a rule should
be passed. Otherwise, our office has little influence.

My third and final recommendation is that all new Ombudsmen
be required to watch a minimum of five programs of ”Peoples

The Chairman introduced the parliamentarian, Professor Emeritus Gifford Blyton;
_the two Sargeants at Arms, Ms. Mary Mayhew and Professor Ronald Farrar; the new
Secretary of the Senate, Acting Registrar, George M. Dexter; and the Recording Secrem
tary, Martha Ferguson. The Chairman also introduced the Senate Council fdr l984u85
who are: Professors Malcolm Jewell, political science; Andy Grimes, business and



 1‘ I .

economics, Susan Belmore, psychology; Donald Hochstrasser, allied health, Bradley

Canon, political science and Secretary of the Senate Council; Wilbur Frye, agriculture;
Donald Ivey, music; Glenn Collins, agriculture; and Robert Altenkirch, engineering.

The Ex Officio members are: Professors James Kemp, animal sciences and Constance Wilson,
social work who are faculty members of the Board of Trustees; E. Douglas Rees, medicine;
Student Government President, Timothy Freudenberg; and student representatives Bill
White and James Hourigan. Ms. Celinda Todd is the administrative assistant in the
Senate Council Office.

The Chairman asked that the ten-day circulation rule be waived in order to take
up the action items on the agenda. The motion was moved, seconded and passed. The
first item was postponed because some of the wording in the proposal was technical and
would cause problems in the University Senate Rules.


Chairman Bostrom recognized Professor Bradley Canon, Secretary of the Senate
Council, for a motion. Professor Canon, on behalf of the Senate Council, recommended
the proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section V., 4.l.3., Second Master's
Degree. The proposal was circulated to members of the senate under date of August 3,


The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Olshewsky's under—
standing was that the proposal would prohibit a student receiving a master's degree
after receiving a Ph.D. Professor Canon said that was true when based on the same work.

There was no further discussion and the proposed change, which passed unanimously,
reads as follows:

New Rule:

V. 4.l.3 Concurrent Degree Programs
Concurrent enrollment for degree purposes in more
than one graduate program is permitted only with
the approval of the student's Graduate Advisor(s),
Directors of Graduate Studies in the programs, and
the Dean of the Graduate School.


Subsequent to the receipt of a doctoral degree, a
student is not eligible to receive a master's
degree based on the work which led to the doctorate.


The present rule does not require consent from the Graduate
School for simultaneous enrollment in two Master's programs.
This can produce procedural and academic difficulties, both
for the student and the Graduate School.

In addition, some students have felt that completion of a
doctoral degree automatically qualified them for a Master's
~degree. Individual graduate programs and the Graduate School
should have the right to control specific requirements for

specific degrees